Madras High Court
G.S.T.Joodhith Prince vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 September, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.18048 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.18048 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.14911 of 2021
G.S.T.Joodhith Prince : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Environment, Climate Change and Forests (FR.8) Department,
Fort ST. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Managing Director,
Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd.,
Vadaseri,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District – 629 001. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the second
respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Pa1/11192/17, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P.(MD)No.18048 of 2021
20.04.2021, quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the
respondents 1 & 2 herein to revise the scale of pay of the petitioner
for the post of 'Junior Draughting Officer' (JDO) from Rs.5200 –
20200 + 2800/- as Rs.9300-34800 + 4200/- w.e.f. the date of initial
appointment of the petitioner viz., 01.12.2010 along with monetary
benefits by extending the benefit of G.O.(Ms).No.329, Finance (Pay
Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 and G.O.(Ms).No.268, Finance
(Pay Cell) Department dated 22.07.2013 and disburse the monitory
benefits within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prithvi Raj
For Respondent No.1 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the second respondent rejecting
the petitioner's request for pay revision on par with Government
employees.
2.The petitioner is employed as a Junior Drafting Officer in
the office of the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that his scale of pay has not been fixed on par with the Government
servants. He made a representation to the second respondent
seeking to fix his scale of pay on par with the Government servants
which has been rejected as seen from the impugned order dated
20.04.2021.
3.The second respondent has stated in the impugned order
that the petitioner's representation was forwarded to the first
respondent who has not approved the request of the petitioner and
therefore under the impugned order the request of the petitioner has
been rejected.
4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 23.12.2021
passed in W.A.Nos.484 of 2014 and 2183 of 2021 in the case of
Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to
Government Vs. S.Karunanithi and M/s.Arasu Rubber
Corporation Limited [second respondent herein]. In particular
he relied upon paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said judgment which is
reproduced hereunder:
“24.Rule 34 of the Service Rules of the 2nd
Respondent Corporation reads as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“34.Pay and Allowances:- Pay and
allowances, such as Dearness Allowance,
House Rent Allowance, Rural Incentive
Allowance, Project Allowance etc., will be
paid to the Corporation employees at the
rates applicable to State Government
employees, from time to time.”
25.On a scrutiny of the above said Rule 34,
this Court is able to find that in view of the said Rule
34, certainly the petitioner would be entitled to get
the pay scale and other allowances, etc., on par with
the State Government Employees from time to time.
This fact has not been considered by the first
Respondent Government. The interpretation given
by the 1st Respondent Government and the 2nd
Respondent Corporation to Rule 34, cannot be
accepted as the said Rule, not only covers 'Pay', but
also all other 'Allowances', etc. Hence, in the opinion
of this Court, on receiving the proposal of the 2nd
Respondent Corporation, the 1st Respondent
Government ought to have approved the same in
favour of the Petitioner, in the light of Rule 34 of the
Service Rules of the 2nd Respondent Corporation and
the principle of 'Equal Pay' for 'Equal Work', leaving
the 2nd Respondent Corporation to bear the financial
burden, but the 1st Respondent Government had
miserably failed to do so.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.He would submit that since the petitioner is also an
employee of M/s.Arasu Rubber Corporation, a Government of Tamil
Nadu undertaking, the decision rendered by the Division Bench in
the aforesaid decision also applies to the case of the petitioner and
therefore, the scale of pay of the petitioner has to be on par with
other Government servants as held by the Division Bench of this
Court referred to supra.
6.A counter affidavit has also been filed by the second
respondent reiterating the contents of the impugned order.
However, as seen from the impugned order, no reasons have been
given except stating that the request of the petitioner if granted will
cause financial burden to the State. The decision rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court referred to supra has made it clear that
as per Rule 34 of the Service Rules of the second respondent
Corporation, the pay scale and other allowances payable to the
employees of the second respondent Corporation has to be on par
with the State Government employees from time to time. But the
same has not been considered in the impugned order. In the decision
rendered by the Division Bench dated 23.12.2021 referred to supra,
it was also a case involving the very same Corporation namely
M/s.Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, where the petitioner is also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
working. Since by total non-application of mind to the decision
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.12.2021 in
W.A.Nos.484 of 2014 & 2183 of 2021, the impugned order has been
passed, necessarily, the impugned order has to be quashed and the
matter has to be remanded back to the respondents for fresh
consideration on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the
decision rendered by the Division Bench of the this Court dated
23.12.2021 referred to supra, within a time frame to be fixed by this
Court.
7.In the result, the impugned order dated 20.04.2021
passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed and the matter
is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration on
merits and in accordance with law in the light of the decision
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 23.12.2021,
referred to supra. The second respondent is directed to submit a
fresh proposal to the first respondent seeking for approval for
fixation of the scale of pay of the petitioner based on the petitioner's
earlier representation which has been rejected under the impugned
order within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order on merits and in accordance with law, after giving
due consideration to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
dated 23.12.2021. On receipt of the said proposal from the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders within
a period of three [3] months, thereafter.
8.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.09.2024
Index :Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Environment, Climate Change and Forests (FR.8) Department,
Fort ST. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Managing Director,
Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd.,
Vadaseri,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District – 629 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
MR
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
